Health Committee on March 10th, 2026

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Can you just send ...?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

If we could take a quick, five-minute pause, we can do that.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

No, we have witnesses here.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Do you want to deal with it after the witnesses?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

The committee agrees on the intent that they won't be separated out or anything. They're part of another panel. This is on the public record. We all know the intent.

Yes, sir.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Can we have something typed up immediately and distributed?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

In the interest of time, if we have good faith here, I think we can make it work back in the clerk's office once we get it typed up.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Administratively, is the clerk okay with that?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

It's whatever the committee decides. We can instruct the clerk on whatever we want to do.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

We could type it up really quickly right now. I can do it really quickly.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

We have 30 minutes of testimony to carry on with today and a bunch of witnesses online, so I would highly discourage that, but it's up to the committee.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Chair, can I seek unanimous consent to add, at the end of this motion, after “as part of a panel of witnesses”, the words “for one hour”?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Are all agreed?

(Subamendment agreed to)

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

There you go.

Just so we're clear, by unanimous consent, we're okay with the amendment that Grifols will be part of a panel.

(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

We'll get it clarified with the clerk, as far as the wording is concerned, after the meeting.

Thank you so much, committee.

With that, we shall start into testimony from our witnesses.

Mr. Watson, you have five minutes.

[Jeff Watson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Apotex Inc.]

Thank you, Vice-Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Jeff Watson, president and CEO of Apotex Canada. Apotex greatly appreciates this important and timely opportunity to contribute to the Standing Committee on Health's study of pharmaceutical sovereignty for Canada.

There's no question that the pandemic experience, coupled with recent shifts in the international political and economic environment, heightened the urgency of having a public policy response to ensure that Canadian patients, and the health care system more broadly, continue to have access to critical generic medicines that domestic producers like Apotex manufacture.

As a Canadian company founded over 50 years ago in Toronto, Apotex is, today, a unique Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturing asset, with five FDA- and Health Canada-approved manufacturing sites employing over 6,000 employees worldwide and 4,000 here in Canada. To remain state of the art, Apotex annually spends over $500 million in Canada on its operations, and plans to invest $900 million in R and D and capital expenditures over the next five years. Importantly, while based in Ontario, Apotex is a global company providing drugs and therapeutics for millions of patients in over 70 countries. Apotex is also Canada's largest exporter of generic drugs and therapeutics to the U.S. market.

Its manufacturing facilities together with its global head office in Toronto make Apotex Canada's largest pharmaceutical company, pharmaceutical manufacturer and pharmaceutical employer. It's from this vantage point I offer perspectives in the context of the committee's study.

While likely shaped by current events, which I will address later in my remarks, the committee's study reflects a common concern among many governments, which, following the COVID-19 experience, recognized the risks of not developing pharmaceutical sovereignty. As a result of the pandemic, many countries developed and implemented strategic plans to prepare for the next pandemic-like event. Canada prudently sought to address gaps in its life sciences ecosystem through the biomanufacturing and life sciences strategy and its corresponding investments.

The Apotex pandemic experience provides valuable lessons on the importance of having a strong domestic generic pharmaceutical manufacturing sector, with companies like Apotex at its core. From the outset of the pandemic, Apotex was called upon by governments and acted unilaterally to address evolving pandemic-related health care challenges, which the company was uniquely positioned to do. Apotex quickly identified ways it could shift its manufacturing platform and supply chain to meet emerging and urgent health care needs.

For example, early in the pandemic, when sanitizer was in short supply, Apotex was able to retrofit its Brantford facility, normally a dedicated active pharmaceutical ingredient site, to manufacture hand sanitizer, which we donated to health care organizations in Canada. As a manufacturer of hydroxychloroquine, we donated two million doses of the product for clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19. Most importantly, when other countries came to us, we prioritized Canadian patients to ensure that we had enough product to cover those who needed the drug for other indications, such as rheumatoid arthritis and lupus.

The effective Apotex-government relationship that emerged during the pandemic ensured that Canadian patients had access to vital generic drugs and served to underscore the importance of having direct access to domestic generic manufacturing capacity during a health crisis.

We are currently experiencing a global shift. A new global pharmaceutical manufacturing landscape is emerging in jurisdictions such as the U.S. In the past six months alone, the U.S. has implemented over 10 specific measures aimed at supporting existing manufacturers and attracting companies and manufacturers from other jurisdictions.

Make Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturing a policy priority. This is why I'm happy to attend today with all of you. Given those policy incentives being adopted in the U.S. and Europe, and our overreliance on generic pharmaceuticals produced outside North America, Canada's pharmaceutical manufacturing sovereignty is at risk. Accordingly, we strongly urge the committee to recommend that the government add generic pharmaceutical manufacturing as a priority sector within the buy Canadian policy.

Apotex strongly endorses the recommendations made by the CPMEA, a colleague joining us here today, and would emphasize the need for the buy Canadian policy initiative to provide Canadian generic pharmaceutical manufacturers with a dedicated regulatory approval process and establish a preference for Canadian-manufactured generic products—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

That's time.

[Jeff Watson]

—in the context of federal procurement.

Vice-Chair, that concludes my remarks.

Again, on behalf of Apotex, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the committee's important study. I look forward to questions that some of the committee members may have.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Thank you, Mr. Watson.

Go ahead, Mr. Bouvier, for five minutes.

[Michel Bouvier, Professor, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your consideration of Canada's pharmaceutical sovereignty.

My name is Michel Bouvier. I'm a professor of biochemistry and molecular medicine at the Université de Montréal and principal investigator at the Institute for Research on Immunology and Cancer, or IRIC. I led this state-of-the-art institute with more than 400 scientists for 10 years until June 2024.

I also cofounded IRICoR, which is an organization specializing in intellectual property protection and research valorization and commercialization. Its mission is to transform scientific discoveries from university labs into concrete therapeutic applications, including through partnerships with the biopharmaceutical industry and the creation of spinoff companies here in Canada.

Today I want to talk to you about the IRIC-IRICoR model, which illustrates how innovation infrastructure can directly contribute to Canada's pharmaceutical sovereignty.

Pharmaceutical sovereignty does not depend solely on the ability to manufacture drugs. It starts well upstream with the ability to innovate locally, develop tools, discover new therapies and bring them to clinical development.

It is precisely with this in mind that the federal government created the centres of excellence for commercialization and research program, or CECR, in 2007. Through the program, IRIC was able to develop, alongside our basic research activities, a major university-based drug discovery unit. This infrastructure is now one of the largest of its kind in the world, consisting of more than 60 chemists and biologists specializing in drug discovery in a university setting.

The strength of the model relies on the synergy of three complementary components: a high-level university research institute, an integrated drug discovery platform and a structure specializing in the valorization and commercialization of innovations. This combination creates a true therapeutic innovation ecosystem.

In concrete terms, the model has already produced tangible results. It has created five spinoff companies that operate in Canada as well as numerous partnerships with the broader international pharmaceutical industry. Several ecosystem projects have progressed towards clinical development and have generated millions of dollars in revenue. The revenue can then be partially reinvested in the research and development of new therapeutic solutions.

The infrastructures also have another strategic value. Beyond innovation, they represent a domestic capacity that can be mobilized in times of crisis. Drug discovery and development platforms can be quickly repurposed to support the production of therapeutics, whether generics or other essential products, in the event of supply chain disruptions or geopolitical tensions, as we are currently experiencing.

Unfortunately, the federal CECR program was discontinued in 2018. IRIC, its drug discovery unit and IRICoR have been able to continue their operations through own-source revenue and various partnerships. However, the lack of structural support such as that provided by the CECR program now limits their ability to grow and expand.

I think it's important to recognize that therapeutic innovation and pharmaceutical production capacity are national security issues. In the current geopolitical context, and given the significant changes happening with our neighbours to the south, it is becoming essential for Canada to protect and strengthen its domestic capacity to discover, develop and produce the drugs needed to treat Canadians.

Integrated models, such as the one developed at IRIC, show that Canada already has the scientific expertise and infrastructure needed to play an important role in this area. With appropriate policy support, these platforms could contribute even more significantly to our country's pharmaceutical sovereignty.

What is needed now is a strategic commitment to support and develop these domestic capabilities in the short, medium and long term.

Thank you for your attention. I will be happy to answer your questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Thank you very much.

Please go ahead, Mr. Somers, for five minutes.

[Julian M. Somers, Full Professor, As an Individual]

Greetings from snowy North Vancouver today.

I'm Dr. Julian Somers, and I work as a clinical psychologist and full professor. My primary area of expertise is addiction practices and policies, and for 40 years, I have designed and implemented innovations in harm reduction and recovery-oriented services and policies. My body of work includes large-scale reforms to public services in Canada's provinces and territories, and randomized controlled trials demonstrating how to effectively reduce crime and medical emergencies and promote social reintegration among people who experience addictions and homelessness. I've also led multiple studies on pharmaceuticals, addressing addiction and other forms of mental illness.

I'm grateful for the opportunity to bring several points to the attention of this committee. In the past decade, Canada, including my home province of B.C., has introduced addiction policies that were ill-advised, misrepresented and intentionally unevaluated and that caused immense harm to citizens and communities. Canada was the only place in the world that prioritized dispensing an array of pharmaceuticals to people living in poverty with profound addictions as effective forms of intervention were marginalized and even maligned, and it is of vital public importance to understand why.

First, Canada differs from comparator nations, including the United States, by failing to require pharmaceutical companies to disclose the amounts they provide to clinicians, hospitals, activist groups and universities, and how those funds are used. Canadian academic organizations that previously focused on things such as infectious diseases shifted their focus to addiction, backed by pharmaceutical partners.

Second, senior public health and clinical leaders lobbied for the expanded use of pharmaceuticals while forming related companies that promoted “safe supply”. These apparent conflicts of interest involved people who held roles such as provincial health officer, deputy provincial health officer, senior researcher and director of health research funding. In addition, venture capitalists, such as the Safe Supply Streaming company, issued calls for early investors, claiming that Canada was on the leading edge, creating a roughly $360-billion expected market in pharmaceuticals for addiction.

There is no way to explain Canada's pharma-first addictions strategy without considering the role of money. The influence of private capital is evident in the emergence of conflicts of interest and in the uses of tax dollars to fund industry-friendly research and direct spending on pharmaceuticals with no hope of reasonably reducing mass addiction casualties. There was and remains no evidence indicating that pharmaceuticals were either safe or effective in promoting recovery from severe addiction.

For several years, the harms of Canada's pharma-first addiction policies were denied by governments and those with vested interests, but over time, it became impossible to deny what was increasingly evident to more and more citizens, first responders, business owners, parents and families. A large body of addiction science and practice was effectively displaced, with links extending back to the era of deinstitutionalization. I remember it well from my early days in the 1980s, working at B.C.'s Riverview Hospital. Canadians were promised a shift to community-based, recovery-oriented systems of care for people experiencing addictions and other mental illnesses. In 2006, a Canadian Senate committee led by Michael Kirby completed an exhaustive analysis that reinstated the urgent need to redouble our efforts toward that goal.

The overwhelming majority of Canadians who have died in the past decade from drug poisoning were unemployed. In B.C., where drugs have become the leading cause of death among youth, about three-quarters of those youth received services from our Ministry of Children and Family Development, which administers foster care.

When physicians, lawyers, airline pilots and public servants develop addictions, they are supported within intensive psychosocial interventions and are required to abstain from substance use, including pharmaceutical forms of addictive drugs. However, in recent years, if an average Canadian citizen develops an addiction, they receive no intensive psychosocial resources, regardless of whether they are unemployed or inadequately housed, and they are given the one thing that the previously mentioned groups are denied: drugs. It has been widely demonstrated that the same approach to addiction that works for physicians and others can be applied to assist people regardless of their circumstances.

An important step toward that single standard of care in Canada would be to require that pharmaceutical companies disclose funds provided to researchers, clinicians and other groups, and to ensure that public funds are applied to research and services that prioritize the goal of addiction prevention, social reintegration and recovery.

Those things are achievable, and I heartily encourage you to consider supporting that kind of course correction through the important work of your committee.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Now we'll go to Mr. Keon.

I believe you're speaking on behalf of your group. You have five minutes.

[Jim Keon, President, Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you for the opportunity to share the perspectives of the Canadian generic and biosimilar pharmaceutical industries on Canada's pharmaceutical sovereignty.

Generic and biosimilar medicines fill approximately 80% of all prescriptions for Canadian patients. These cost-effective products support the viability of pharmaceutical budgets and create the financial leeway needed for drug plans to cover new and innovative therapies.

Our member companies operate the vast majority of Canada's pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity, with extensive facilities and a highly skilled workforce.

Over the past two decades, price pressures and procurement policies that favour the lowest cost have progressively reduced domestic production incentives.

In terms of our perspective on pharmaceutical sovereignty, as a starting point, pharmaceutical sovereignty will require decision-makers to recognize that cost-saving generic and biosimilar medicines are not just budget line items; they are strategic assets that must be treated as health, economic and national security priorities.

Pharmaceutical sovereignty is about protecting the health of Canadians through a reliable, secure and sustainable domestic supply of medicines. It means ensuring that Canada has the domestic capacity and policy frameworks in place to reliably supply and produce essential medicines to meet the needs of Canadians.

There are thousands of prescription medications sold in Canada today. While it would be impossible to make all these medicines here, there are important opportunities to strengthen both Canada's domestic generic pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity and its strategic international pharmaceutical supply chains. However, there are market barriers.

Pharmaceutical sovereignty will require decision-makers to take action to address the significant existing barriers to market entry for generic and biosimilar medicines. This is needed to both ensure a robust pipeline of new generic and biosimilar medicines for Canadians and support domestic generic drug manufacturers that want to grow their manufacturing and R and D capacity here in Canada.

The lack of predictability and the significant risk that companies are facing in Canada today is unprecedented. It is extremely difficult for our member companies to plan and build a business case to make the investments needed to bring new, cost-saving medicines to the Canadian market. For example, there are exceptionally long delays in Health Canada drug submission reviews. There are over 100 generic drug submissions in the backlog. Some targets have been missed by years.

There is also very low uptake of more complex generic products in Canada because drug plans have not put the right policy levers in place to support their widespread use. This urgently needs to be addressed, as it represents most of the current product pipelines for generic drug manufacturers.

Patents for new uses of older brand-name drugs are now unfairly blocking generic and biosimilar market entry. That was not how Parliament had intended the intellectual property and regulatory system to work. Patent evergreening, product hopping and other life-cycle management strategies of originator companies are delaying and frustrating market entry. Any move to increase market exclusivity periods for originator drugs would harm Canada's pharmaceutical sovereignty.

On domestic investment, in addition to addressing these existing barriers, Canada must create competitive conditions for companies to invest in manufacturing upgrades and expand capacity. This includes tax incentives, grants, loans and modernized regulatory pathways with clear guidance. When governments send predictable, long-term market signals, companies invest. Without those signals, capital flows elsewhere.

Pharmaceutical sovereignty does not mean isolation. Canada will always be part of global supply chains. Sovereignty does mean having sufficient domestic capacity and trusted partners, so Canadians are not at the back of the line when risks of supply chain shocks occur. Canada should secure supply chain security agreements with key trading partners, building on the lessons learned through the pandemic.

In conclusion, Canada's pharmaceutical sovereignty must begin with generics and biosimilars—the products that meet most of Canadians' prescription drug needs. We have a strong foundation, but it cannot be taken for granted. By addressing current barriers, Canada can expand generic pharmaceutical manufacturing, strengthen supply chains and ensure that Canadians have timely access to cost-saving generic and biosimilar medicines.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Thank you, Mr. Keon.

Now, from the Canadian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Exporters Alliance, we have Ms. Creighton.